I ’ . • • I
OSRO/j
Union
Vol. 5. No. 45.
GASTONIA, N. C., NOVEMBER 9, 1911
One Dollar a Year
A
—To Curtail and Control Production of
Crops Por the Market.
By J. Z. Green.
IMITED PRODUCTION is a mod
ern business principle that underlies
the safety and success of every bus
iness profession. Limiting supply to
^’'iual demand is the scientific business prin-
^T^e that stands between success and failure.
^^^^mited production, without regard for de-
would bring financial disaster to the
*^‘^f>ufacturer, and unlimited distribution,
''^'thout regard for demand, would wreck and
the biggest and strongest mercantile en-
Pnse on earth. All classes of manufac-
Oil ^ ^^ticijiate the demands for their vari-
products and they then produce only
is meet the probable demands. That
the ^ iritelligent plan of production and it is
plan. Following this plan out, con-
the
Rested
toj. rnarkets from abnormallly large fac-
^ ^ Outputs are prevented and bankruptcy
ued. Limiting production to actual nor-
Prod^^*^^^^ insures profitable prices to the
^an
^oer and makes his business safe, per-
^ttai
'^ut and profitable. This result can be
‘^ed in
uiod other way except through the
i^usiness principle of limited produc-
riier*the entire professional and com-
^ical^*^^ ^orld puts into action as far as prac-
of ^^'ofessional men limit the production
L, to actual demand for the same
isiiiess
•^iiited
liii->.v T"" reason that is behind the idea of
Wd P^o^^uction with the manufacturers,
^^ud ^^^ooimend and advocate and de-
of limited production of farm
variQ-^^^^’ '’^*-‘^oded for the market, I am ad-
ory ^ow or untried plan, no new the-
Uew ^^onomics. I admit that it is, indeed,
but; tl ^PP^’od to the business of farming,
sigdt(.|j^ fuct that we haven’t been far-
Uess ^’^pugh to apply it in our own busi-
home-owners are becoming
year fewer in the rural districts every'
our Q have been made to suffer for
^^Ve ''^usteful industry and why others
euergy^^^^*^' the result of our toil and our
economies in production,
on n ^"‘^ve competitive produc-
^e farm after it has been eliminated
ever
^Ise? Why should we waste our
produce and gather a
prices below cost of
P^'^clurfi increasing the aggregate
Of hogs for the market the price
of hogs declines so that the consumer gets
the benefit of the increased production,
doesn’t it result in loss to the producer? In
the aggregate, if ten million bales of cotton
for the market will bring two hundred mil
lion dojlars more money to the producers of
cotton than fourteen million bales will bring,
isn’t it business suicide to produce fourteen
million bales? “The world needs the cotton,”
you say? If farmers find that they can’t
get a profitable price for cotton unless they
produce less than the world needs, isn’t it
their moral duty to go ahead and produce less
than the world needs and thereby protect their
own interests and the interests of their fam
ilies? If they don’t guard their interests,
who will? Is it right for a farmer to carry
his wife and children into the fields to make
big crops of cotton and tobacco when it is a
fixed law of economics that prices decline in
proportion as the market is congested by ab
normally large outputs ? Isn’t it a mistake
that almost amounts to a crime for farmers
to keep their children out of school and put
them into the fields to depress prices of farm
products and let them grow up in ignorance
and become an easy prey for superior intel
ligence? Talk about tragedy, but here it is,
written in scarlet, in millions of Southern
farm houses. Child slavery in cotton mills is,
indeed deplorable and it ought to be pro
hibited by the strong arm of law, but it is no
worse than child slavery in cotton and tobacco
fields. In fact, child slavery in the cotton
fields is a double tragedy, for it results both
in perpetuating the curse of ignorance on the
farm and also brings ruinously low prices for
the very thing which the children are kept out
of school to produce!
If the white children of the South had been
kept out of the cotton fields this year the cot
ton crop would have been reduced approxi
mately two million bales. And again, if Sou
thern white farmers had all planted for a
living at home, thus correcting a suicidal
economic error that has cost the South more
than any other, the cotton crop would have
been reduced another two million bales. These
two legitimate and commendable business
methods of limiting cotton production would
have saved this year one-fourth the labor and
energ}' that has been criminally wasted. This
same principle of limiting production will ap
ply to any other crops grown especially for the
market, and unless farmers wake up and be
come practical business men, as well as good
farmers, and co-operate to control the output
of products intended for the market, the
classes who do business under the principle of
'imited production and controlled distribution
will eventually own all the farm lands of this
country and the masses in the rural districts
will be reduced to tenants. No class of peo
ple who enter into deadly competition with
e.ich other, both in the production and sale of
their products, can reasonably expect anything
but ultimate industrial slavery.
I am fully conscious that the argument I
am producing here is somewhat in conflict
with the work of well-meaning employees of
the agricultural departments who have en
couraged us to make competitive business war
against each other to see which can succeed in
doing most to increase the aggregate produc
tion of farm products for the market. Their
efforts to correct the great and far-reaching
error of importing food products to consume
on the farm is commendable. Their idea of
soil improvement is also right and proper, if
they also advise the reduction of acreage and
shorter hours of labor on the farm as a safe
guard against congested markets and low
prices, but if the aim and idea is to increase
the aggregate production of products for the
market by improving all the acres now in cul
tivation, they are unconsciously engaged in a
task, which if consummated, means nothing
but disaster and low prices to the very class
they seek to help, and it brings corresponding
prosperity to the inhabitants of towns and
cities who buy our products cheaply just in
proportion as the aggregate output of our
farm products increase.
1 am also mindful of the fact that in ad
vocating controlled production and controlled
distribution of farm products I am contending
for the same principle that “trusts” and com
bines use to fix prices upon their products,
and without which they could never succeed.
If I am criticised for this by “trust busters”
I respectfully remind them that no “trust” has
ever yet been “busted” by legislation and we
are getting tired waiting for relief from that
jource. The idea of breaking up “trusts” and
combines by law now is an empty dream.
Nothing short of the application of the prin
ciple of socialism will do it, and this country
isn t ready for that yet. Besides, any act of
legislation that would prevent “trusts” from
controlling the output of their products and
(Continuecl on page nine)
1 ■
' I -1
iH